Author: Badalian Vardan

OFFICIAL ARMENIA NEGOTIATING WITH INDONESIA
A1+
| 16:30:30 | 12-10-2005 | Official |
October 12 in the capital of Indonesia Jakarta RA Foreign Minister
Vardan Oskanyan meet the Foreign Minister of the country Pak Hassan
Wirajuda. This was the first visit of a High Armenian delegation
to Indonesia.
During the meeting the sides discussed the perspectives of developing
the relations between the countries. A reference was also made to the
regional problems. Mr. Wirajuda gave details about the signature of the
agreement about the settlement of the Ache conflict. Vardan Oskanyan in
his turn gave details about the Nagorno Karabakh conflict underlining
that the conflict has nothing to do with religion, but it is only the
expression of the right of self-determination of the Karabakh people.
At the end of the meeting the Foreign Ministers signed an inter
governmental agreement about avoiding double tax and a memorandum
about the creation of a Consultation forum. Tomorrow Vardan Oskanyan
will leave for Singapore where he will meet the Foreign Minister of
the country.

“IRAN SYMPHONY” TO BE PERFORMED
IranMania
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 – ©2005 IranMania.com
LONDON, October 12 (IranMania) – The Iranian composer of “Iran
Symphony”, Shahin Farhat, said that Honar Academy of Culture is
commissioned to perform the “Iran Symphony”.
The symphony represents the national glory, history and folk music,
while old melodies have been included in the piece in a modern way.
He told IRNA that the symphony has been written based on Iranian
themes.
Not making any reference to the expected date the piece will be
played , he said, “Following the successful performance of Persian
Gulf and Damavand symphonies in Armenia, which was hailed warmly,
I decided to repeat the concert on the domestic scene due to its
purely Iranian themes.”
The musician referred to the performance of the symphony in Iran as
a privilege and expressed his constant interest in presenting his
works on the domestic scene.
Farhat also pointed out that one of his musical pieces will be
performed by Ali Rahbari in the near future.
Turning to the difficulties facing the performance of orchestral works
in Iran, he said, “Lack of proper musical instruments and equipment
as well as secondary facilities such as synchronous recording make
the conductor of the orchestra unable to arrange the rhythms.
“Nowhere in the world are classical musical pieces played in such an
order as to start with string instruments, proceed with recording
percussion instruments and eventually mix the resulting tunes,”
concluded Farhat.
–Boundary_(ID_3NcjEYyc8y91NTrbfTxJ9A)–

NO RE-SETTLEMENT IN KARABAKH CARRIED OUT
By Tatoul Hakobian
AZG Armenian Daily #183
12/10/2005
Demographic Situation Disturbing
Azat Artsakh newspaper of Stepanakert published demographic situation
in Nagorno Karabakh for January-September of 2005. In the period of
8 months 1525 children were born in Nagorno Karabakh against the 1619
for the last year. The natality for the given period was 458 people,
67 people or 10.9 percent decrease compared with 2004. Official
figures for newcomers in January-September of 2005 were 677 and 627
for emigrants. The mechanical growth was only 50 people.
The Armenian historiography and press wrote numerous times about
Baku’s partiality in regard to demographic policy. It is already
10 years that Karabakh is out of Baku’s control and logically the
Azerbaijani authorities are not responsible for demographic situation
in the region. Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh are the only ones to hold
responsible today.
According to population census in 1989, the population of Nagorno
Karabakh was 189.085, 145.500 of which were Armenians, 40.700 Azeris
(Baku still claims that the Azeri population of Karabakh amounted
to 46.347) and the rest were people of other nationalities. On the
threshold of referendum in Nagorno Karabakh, the authorities present
their approximate figures – 145.000, i.e. as many as in 1989. The
international organizations functioning in Karabakh think this figures
exaggerated and bring their own – 100.000.
Even if the figures Stepanakert presents are real, there is no
re-settlement going on in Karabakh and surrounding territories. In
effect, population density in Karabakh is lower than in any province
of Armenia. Meanwhile natural and agricultural conditions in Karabakh
are not more tolerable than the republican average.

AZERI LEADERS INTOXICATED BY OIL DOLLARS – ARMENIAN DEFENCE MINISTER
Mediamax News Agency, Armenia
Oct 11 2005
Yerevan, 11 October: Armenian Defence Minister Serzh Sarkisyan today
expressed the opinion that “some Azerbaijani leaders are intoxicated
by oil dollars”.
Serzh Sarkisyan said this at a ceremony to award the Armenian
servicemen who participated in the international peacekeeping operation
in Iraq, Mediamax news agency reports.
“During the Karabakh war, we proved our right to life, we defended
our independence and ensured the security of our people. Maintaining
the high combat readiness of our army today, we must ensure a peaceful
solution to the Karabakh problem. This is especially important today
when some Azerbaijani leaders seem to be intoxicated by oil dollars
and are singing the same old tune.
The current situation may be compared with the early 1990s, when
Azerbaijani leaders expressed a desire to resolve the Karabakh problem
in a short time in a military way, to seize Nagornyy Karabakh, Armenia
or part thereof. The hostilities showed that this was not a desire,
but only a myth and insanity which vanished on the battlefield. Now
that 11 years have passed since the hostilities, they are singing
the same old song again,” Serzh Sarkisyan said.

RA DM: ARMENIA NEEDN NOT CHANGE ITS STRATEGY
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
Oct 11 2005
YEREVAN, October 11. /ARKA/. Armenia needn’t change its strategy, the
RA Minister of Defense Serge Sargsyan told reporters when commenting
on the recent statement of the Deputy of the RF State Duma Alexander
Fomenko, who said that adoption of the NATO standards by Armenia will
complicate the strategic partnership of the latter with Russia.
According to the Minister, the Deputy doesn’t understand correctly the
international and NATO standards. According to Sargsyan, the standards
of NATO imply transition to NATO armament, ideology and everything
connected with it, while international standards imply availability
of battle-worthy subdivisions in line with those standards. “These are
different conceptions”, he said. Particularly, drawing an analogy with
sport, Sargsyan noted that Russian and American sportsmen use various
standards however achieve the same goal when holding a record in one-
hundred- meter race.
To remind, on Saturday Fomenko stated in Yerevan that adoption of the
NATO standards by Armenia will complicate its strategic partnership
with Russia. According to him, partners should have the same military
standards. If they are different, it will complicate the strategic
partnership between two countries, since Russia is not going to adopt
those standards.

CHESS TOURNAMENT
Laura Grigorian
Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh
Oct 10 2005
The international chess tournament in Artsakh with famous players and
grand masters is going on. Though October 7 was a day-off, some of the
grand masters played friendly games with chess fans. In Stepanakert
they had meetings at Artsakh State University, Chess Center, one of
the military units of the NKR Defense Army and the Children’s Chess
School. They had meetings in Shushi, too. The grand masters Dreyev and
Sokolov simultaneously played 20 games with the pupils of the school
(Each played 10 games). At the military unit Levon Aronyan played
10 games, Karen Asrian played 12 games in Shushi, and at the Chess
Center Victor Bologan played 10 games simultaneously. At Artsakh State
University GM Vasily Ivanchuk played 10 games with the chess fans
of the university. The games with Arkady Tovmassian and the head of
the department of physical education Michael Baghdassarian ended in
a draw. The vice rector of Artsakh State University Stepan Dadayan
gave a souvenir to V. Ivanchuk. The grand master told Azat Artsakh:
“I am in Karabakh for the first time but I am fascinated by these
wonderful highlands, as well as the people living here. Armenian
people are very hospitable and kind. I liked to be in Armenia, and
now I like Karabakh even more. My impressions from the tournament are
very bright and interesting. It is good that the people in Armenia
and Karabakh love chess. I wish there were more similar tournaments
and a larger number of famous players took part in them. I wish all
the best to the people of Karabakh, willpower to overcome economic
difficulties.” After 5 tours Ashot Anastasian is leading Group A (17th
category) with 4 points, and Sergey Grigorian (Russia) and Ervin Lami
(the Netherlands) are leading Group B (11th category) with 4 points.

ALL CALM ON THE HORIZON
Comment By Sergei Markedonov
Special to Russia Profile
Russia Profile, Russia
Oct 10 2005
Armenia and Azerbaijan Not Worried About Revolutions
The countries of the south Caucasus could be in for a hot autumn this
year. Georgia, for example, will mark the second anniversary of the
“Rose Revolution” that brought Mikheil Saakashvili to power, but it
is doubtful that the date will take place in a festive atmosphere.
Much discussion about the successes and failures of Georgia’s
revolution still lies ahead, as many of the goals that were set out
by its leaders have yet to be reached. No serious progress has been
made in re-establishing the country’s territorial integrity and a
number of social and economic problems still weigh heavy. What’s
more, many in Georgia accuse Saakahsvili and his team of ruling
with an authoritarian hand, not following democratic principles and
institutionalizing a one-man regime in Georgian politics.
Nevertheless, Georgia remains a sort of beacon for the other countries
in the region, as every election campaign, whether presidential or
parliamentary, held in neighboring states since 2003, have had a whiff
of approaching revolution. This also goes for election campaigns in
entities not recognized by the international community. Abkhazia lived
through a “velvet revolution” of its own almost a year ago, and there
was the approach of revolution in the air in Nagorny Karabakh in June.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are no exceptions in this respect and both
have to face the test of how ripe they are for revolution. Armenia
will soon be holding a referendum on proposed amendments to its
constitution and Azerbaijan will hold parliamentary elections on Nov.
6. In both cases the votes are expected to be more open than
was the case with the presidential election in Azerbaijan and the
presidential and parliamentary elections in Armenia in 2003. This may
be an indicator that the CIS has entered a new, post-revolutionary
phase. The main sign of this new situation is the presence of
election observers from the United States, Europe and international
organizations, whose work is to ensure that voting measures up to
democratic standards. Emissaries from Washington and Brussels are
already busy announcing the conditions for the upcoming elections
in the southern Caucasus, and a certain division of labor can be
seen here. The European organizations are paying closer attention to
democracy in Azerbaijan, while those from the United States are keeping
a watchful eye on Armenia – not surprising, given that Armenia’s
traditional geopolitical position of close relations with Russia and a
firm anti-Turkish line is not entirely to the taste of U.S. diplomats.
In a message addressed to Azerbaijani officials at the end of August,
Rene van der Linden, president of the Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly, said, “You must show that you want to and can fulfill the
commitments you made to the Council of Europe and the international
community.”
U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans, for his part, said recently that
the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Armenian constitution
in a national referendum would open up broad new opportunities for
the republic. In Evans’ words, “failure of the referendum would slow
down the democratic processes in Armenia,” and falsification of its
results would set off mass popular protests.
But the presidents of the two countries, Ilham Aliyev in
Azerbaijan and Robert Kocharian in Armenia, have both said on a
number of occasions that they see no revolutions on the horizon
in their countries. Analysts note, however, that there is serious
dissatisfaction among some of the elites both in Armenia and in
Azerbaijan. Both countries face social and economic problems and
the longstanding, unresolved problem of Nagorny Karabakh (which
still pits the two countries against each other). Additionally,
clan dominance – the Nakhichevan-Yerazovsky clan holds power in
Baku, while people from Karabakh run the scene in Yerevan – works
against Aliyev and Kocharian. At various round tables and forums on
the Caucasus in the United States and Europe, the view can be heard
that a democratic revolution in Armenia and Azerbaijan would put an
end to the long-running Karabakh conflict. But are there any real
signs that these two countries could follow Georgia’s path this fall?
It would seem to be too soon to predict the triumph of democratic
revolutionaries in Yerevan and Baku. The current leadership in both
countries enjoys a solid position. Neither country has a fragmented
elite, as was the case in Ukraine, or faces the total privatization
of power, as was the case during Eduard Shevardnadze’s final years in
Georgia. What’s more, in Armenia, Kocharian and his entourage have
attempted to take the lead on revolutionary rhetoric themselves,
embracing democratic slogans and talking of moving closer to Europe.
It was Kocharian’s team that proposed the package of amendments to the
country’s constitution, under question at the referendum, to bring it
into line with European standards. The changes include broadening the
prime minister’s powers (making the post more political, as opposed
to its purely technocratic character at present) and granting the
parliament broader powers. The draft amendments have already passed
through the parliament, with the referendum due to take place on
Nov. 20. The U.S. administration has also expressed its support for
the idea of a referendum.
Kocharian has also stepped up his personal contacts with Saakashvili,
the region’s chief revolutionary. Given that Armenia has a powerful
resource in the Armenian diaspora to support it in its undertakings,
Kocharian and his team have a decent chance of repeating the Moldovan
experience and heading the revolution themselves.
Azerbaijan’s Aliyev is not behind any serious democratic projects of
this type, but he has another card up his sleeve – geopolitics. U.S.
President George W. Bush has spoken on a number of occasions of the
need to deal with Iran. Given the complicated situation in Iraq and
Turkey’s cooling relations with the United States, Azerbaijan could
hypothetically become an important base for a future operation against
Iran. Washington, therefore, has an interest in seeing a strong and
stable state in Azerbaijan, a state that is under control.
An Azerbaijan that is seized and destabilized by internal disputes is
not in the interests of the United States. In this respect, a recent
statement by U.S. Senator Richard Lugar was not a coincidence. “No
orange revolution is expected in Azerbaijan,” the senator said,
adding that the image of Azerbaijan as a country ripe for revolution
was not an accurate one.
But the opposition in both countries has serious plans and is not
willing to make concessions either to a “democratizing,” Kocharian,
or to Aliyev and his geopolitical approach. “Armenia is entering a
new political stage, where we either express our lack of confidence
in the current regime or the regime continues paving the road to its
own reproduction,” Aram Sarkisian, leader of the opposition Democratic
Party of Armenia, said at an extraordinary session of the country’s
parliament on Sept. 1. Isa Gambar, leader of Musavat, the chief
opposition party in Azerbaijan, said that the “world’s attention is
focused on holding transparent elections. If there is any attempt to
break the rules in these elections, the world will see our strength”.
In other words, the elections in Azerbaijan and the referendum in
Armenia promise to be exciting. But an analysis of the people and
potential in the opposition camps in both countries does not bode well
for their chances. The revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine were led by
people who had already held high state office, had broken with the
current regime, and had staked their reputation on something more
than simply being a part of the government. They already had real
experience of state management. Saakashvili was justice minister and
had made a name for himself in the government while Shevardnadze
was still in power. The speaker of the Georgian parliament, Nino
Burdzhanadze, already held the post before the revolution. In Ukraine,
Viktor Yushchenko had earlier served as prime minister and was very
popular with a significant part of the public, while Yulia Tymoshenko
had already served as deputy prime minister. Neither the Azerbaijani
or Armenian opposition can boast figures of this stature or experience.
But the situation could still change before the end of October. If
either of the two governments slips up strategically, for example by
bringing too much pressure to bear on the opposition, this would play
into the hands of would-be revolutionaries and provide an incentive
for their consolidation. Paradoxical though it may sound, it would
be in the best interests of the authorities in both Baku and Yerevan
not to allow any falsification in the votes, all the more so as,
unlike Shevardnadze in Georgia, they do still enjoy a certain level
of the public’s confidence in their countries.
The Karabakh issue is a major trump card for both Baku and Yerevan.
The problem is that the oppositions in both countries, while democratic
on some points, are not so democratic when it comes to Karabakh, and
opposition members on both sides are ready to take an even firmer line
against their opponents than is the case with the current regimes. This
means that a potential revolution in either country is no guarantee at
all of a breakthrough in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. This is
also a serious issue in internal political battles and in the battle
for the backing of the United States and Europe.
Whatever the case, the fall will bring an interesting political season
for the south Caucasus, but whether revolution will be on the menu
depends on the authorities’ actions and the opposition’s ability to
consolidate its forces.
Sergei Markedonov is head of the department for problems of
international relations at the Institute of Political and Military
Analysis.

WE CANNOT LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN
Turkish Daily News
Oct 9 2005
‘How many great poets, like Nazim Hikmet, could we have had if in
the past hundred years our culture had not been suppressed,’ Yasar
Kemal had once lamented. He would know the answer better than anyone.
Himself an ethnic Kurd, Kemal has always been outspoken on issues
of human and minority rights not only via his writing but also via
his activism.
Elif ªafak “How many great poets like Nazim Hikmet could we have had
if in the past hundred years our culture had not been suppressed,”
Yasar Kemal once lamented. He would know the answer better than
anyone. Himself an ethnic Kurd, Kemal has always been outspoken on
issues of human and minority rights not only via his writing but also
via his activism. In 1995 after publishing an article in Der Spiegel,
he was given a suspended sentence of 20 months in prison. During
Kemal’s trial 1,000 intellectuals had claimed responsibility for
the book in which his article had appeared in order to stand behind
him. Among these intellectuals, 99 went on trial at the Istanbul
State Security Court (DGM).
Viewed from this perspective, it looks like nowadays an old pattern
is repeating itself. Once again an acclaimed Turkish novelist is
being put on trial for his views. Orhan Pamuk will go to court in
December for the views he expressed during an interview with a Swiss
paper. In that interview Pamuk had claimed, “Thirty thousand Kurds
and 1 million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but
me dares to talk about it.” Once this statement was heard in Turkey,
it triggered a huge reaction and nationalist uproar. At the same time
there was an intricate debate in the Turkish media, full of twists
and turns. The debate was not between “black” and “white” but between
“shades of gray.” Not many Western journalists have paid attention to
the nuances of this debate, and not many Turkish intellectuals have
tried to explain the nuances to foreign journalists. As a result,
civil society in Turkey has been depicted as more black-and-white
than it really is.
There is no clash of civilizations. Instead there is a clash of
opinions and values. As in many countries, in Turkey too there
is a clash between two forces. On the one hand there is the
“state oriented.” They comprise a crooked alliance: army officers,
conservative bureaucrats, some diplomats, ultranationalist groups,
some Kemalists and some groups on the far left. All these people
can act together if they suspect that “Ataturk’s legacy is being
challenged” and that the state is in danger. For them the state
machinery is above everything, above society and the individual. They
all respond with a nationalist reflex when a Turkish intellectual
voices a critical opinion outside Turkey. The desire to look “good”
in the eyes of the Western world runs deep in the subconscious of this
group. Anyone who taints Turkey’s image in the eyes of the Western
world is seen as a “traitor.” This group is strong, as it is backed
by state apparatuses. Yet, it is also problematically heterogeneous.
The second major force in Turkey today is the “civil
society-oriented.” These, too, compose an alliance: liberals,
libertarians, some social democrats, some conservative Muslims critical
of an excessively centralized regime, many Kurds and Alawis and Sufis
and all open-minded intellectuals. This second alliance is pushing
the country harder and harder towards a multicultural, cosmopolitan
regime and strongly favors Turkey’s accession to the EU.
This group is strong. The problem is, the more they gain pace, the
more the backlash against them.
Turkish media and civil society were recently stirred by a critical
conference that was held for the first time in Istanbul: a conference
on Ottoman Armenians. Over the last four years, similar workshops and
conferences had been organized by open-minded Turkish and Armenian
scholars in different parts of the United States. Yet this conference
differed from the previous ones in three aspects: It was held in
Istanbul, organized collectively by three Turkish universities and all
its keynote speakers came originally from Turkey. For the first time
critical-minded Turkish intellectuals came together to jointly explore
what had happened to the Ottoman Armenians before, during and after
1915. Though highly diverse in other ways, the participants shared one
thing in common: their belief in the need to face the atrocities of
the past, no matter how distressing or dangerous, in order to create
a better future and a more democratic society in Turkey. Despite a
last-minute legal maneuver by a lawyer to prevent it from happening,
the conference was held and openly supported by Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan. All papers were presented without censure, and even
the taboo word “genocide” was publicly uttered. The next day Turkey’s
Milliyet said “Another Taboo Has Been Smashed.”
Though there has been an accompanying nationalist smear campaign,
the number of Turks supporting the network of intellectual solidarity
between Turkish and Armenian intellectuals is on the rise. Through
the collective efforts of academics, journalists, writers and media
correspondents, 1915 is finally being opened to discussion in Turkey
like never before. All this is accompanied by a series of important
steps that the government has taken to improve its human rights record.
Therefore, Pamuk’s case will be received within such a complicated
framework in which two forces are in conflict. We are in need of
collective efforts for the civil society-oriented to preside over
the state-oriented. Turkey is a country where in the past, social
transformation was always introduced from above, imposed by a cultural
elite on the rest of society. This time it has to be different. For
a true democracy to exist, change has to come from below and from
within. This is what we are struggling for.
Turkish intellectuals will stand by Pamuk on the day of his trial,
just like they stood by Kemal in the past. Our country has already
hurt and isolated many of its great poets and writers in the past. We
cannot let it happen again.
–Boundary_(ID_COyhDwRn5uic7+LA23/slw)–
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TERRY DAVIS: THE PROCESS OF NK CONFLICT SETTLEMENT GIVES POSITIVE RESULTS
ARMINFO News Agency
October 6, 2005
STRASBOURG, OCTOBER 6. ARMINFO. “The process of Karabakh conflict
settlement at the level of Presidents and Ministers for Foreign
Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan gives positive results,” the
Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis says in an
talk with ARMINFO’s correspondent.
Mr. Davis says that he continues to keep his eye upon the situation
in Karabakh, although he resigned from the post of PACE rapporteur
on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Secretary General adds that he
regularly receives information about the conflict settlement process,
but avoids making public statements concerning the matter. He also
notes that notable progress has been achieved during the last 4
months. The current approach to the Karabakh problem was discussed
during the last visit of the Armenian Minister for Foreign Affairs
Vardan Oskanian to Strasbourg and also with Eldar Mamediarov, the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, in the framework of UN
summit. -A-

KOCHARIAN SINGLES OUT SPHERE OF HIGH TECHNOLOGIES AS IMPORTANT DIRECTION OF ARMENIA’S COOPERATION WITH INDIA
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Oct 6 2005
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 6, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Bharion Singh
Sekhavat, Indian Vice-President, who arrived in Armenia on an
official visit emphasized the high level of political relations
between the 2 countries at the October 6 meeting with RA President
Robert Kocharian. India’s Vice-President remembered Robert Kocharian’s
official visit to India paid in 2003 with warmth.
RA President considered Indian Vice-President’s visit to Armenia as
an important step aimed at developing the bilateral relations.
Mentioning the centuries-old interrelations between Armenian and Indian
peoples, affinity of the languages and cultures, the sides noted that
they left their noticeable trace on the peoples and cultures of the
2 countries.
According to RA President’s Press Service, the interlocutors emphasized
rather efficient cooperation of the 2 countries at international
instances with pleasure.
In the opinion of the interlocutors, the economic contacts between
Armenia and India don’t completely reflect the existing possibilities.
RA President singled out the sphere of high technologies as an
important direction of cooperation. India succeeded in this sphere
and Armenia announced the development of this sphere as its priority.
“We expect concrete steps that will enable to form a wider field for
cooperation,” Robert Kocharian said.
It was mentioned that there are already examples of successful activity
of Indian business circles in Armenia. Indian businessmen have made
investments in the sphere of Armenian mining, diamond cutting and
gold procession, India has rendered great assistance to Armenia in
the issue of agricultural reequipment.
The two countries expressed readiness to continue cooperation in
the spheres of science, education as well. It was mentioned that
many Indian youths study in Armenia at present. “Our goal is to turn
Armenia into a center of intellectual services and education,” Robert
Kocharian stressed.
The interlocutors also attached importance to the role of the Indian
Armenian community in the development of the Armenian-Indian relations
mentioning that the community members have completely integrated to
country’s life.